Its horrible to think that the one you love, the one you want to propose to and spend the rest of your life with, may not be the right one.  Ideally, you will offer her the ring, she will eagerly say yes, and the two of you will live happily ever after. But what if you don’t?  What if you never even make it down the aisle?

There has been a lot of debate over who owns the engagement ring when a couple who is planning a wedding decides to call it off, both among the public, and the courts, but several precedents have been set, and before you propose, you may want to be aware of what could happen.

Barry Meyer and Robyn Mitnick became engaged in August of 2001 when Barry proposed to Robyn with a $19,500 engagement ring.  A few months later, Barry presented Robyn with a prenuptial agreement, which she refused to sign.  The disagreement over the pre-nup ended their engagement, and the couple broke off their wedding.  Barry asked Robin for the engagement ring back, but she refused, prompting him to sue her in a Michigan court.

There are a few legal terms that apply to engagement rings that you should understand.  These terms support the precedent setting court case Meyer v. Mitnick, where Robyn, even after appeal, was ordered to return her engagement ring after the couple broke off their upcoming marriage:

Conditional Gift:

This is a gift that is given essentially under contract.  Meaning, when given, the receiver and the giver have entered into an agreement that validates the receiver holding the gift.  Engagement rings are considered by most courts to be conditional gifts.

Unconditional Gift:

This is the traditional thought behind gifts, that they are given unconditionally, and once gifted, cannot be revoked.  This term applies to most gifts other than engagement rings.

Fault:

Many have believed that whomever is at fault for ending the engagement revokes the rights to the engagement ring.  In other words, if the man breaks the engagement, the woman keeps the ring, but if the woman breaks the engagement, she returns the ring.

No-Fault:

This is the general rule set in place by the courts.  It doesn’t matter who breaks the engagement, the ring must be returned.

The courts declared that an engagement ring is a conditional gift, dependant upon the couple actually getting married.  If the marriage takes place, then the ring belongs to the woman, she did not break the condition of the gift.  If the couple does not marry, the condition has been broken, and the gift must be returned.  The court also believes that this does not depend on who is at fault for ending the engagement.

The Meyer v. Mitnick ruling reads as follows:

“Affirmed. A determination of who owns the engagement ring following termination of the engagement does not require a determination of which party was at fault. Marriage is an implied condition of the transfer of title to the ring, so the gift does not become absolute until the marriage occurs. The ring must be returned to its donor.”

You can read more blogs about and shop for engagement rings at EngagementRings.org.